Revisting the exploding atom

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Revisting the exploding atom

Post by SoverT »

I ran across an article on Californium-252 recently, and it got me thinking again on the decay process as expounded by RS2. It left me with a few questions though.

In the 2008 video lectures, Bruce mentions that when a motion reaches the maximum ratio representable in 3 dimensions, the motion becomes unstable, and starts losing some motions.
This is where I have some uncertainty.
  • What determines which particular "bit" of motion departs?
  • Why doesn't, for example, element 118 split equally into 2 motions of 59? There appears to be a preference (in computer terms) to pop a quantum from the top of the stack; is the source of that preference known?
  • What determines how long the "eject some motion, then expand outward and reacquire the motion again" process continues? The local temporal landscape/environment?
  • What determines how far "out" a motion is "thrown"? This, in combination with the outward rate of expansion should yield the duration of a "lose-regain" cycle, correct?
  • If motion is only thrown out in sub-atomic increments, it is carried at the rate of the progression, and therefore can be overtaken by the atomic motion, correct?
Whenever I sit down and try to write some code involving RS2, I keep thinking that it might be modeled as some type of pressure system, A similar take to the speed zone map Bruce has shared examples of.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Revisting the exploding atom

Post by bperet »

SoverT wrote:In the 2008 video lectures, Bruce mentions that when a motion reaches the maximum ratio representable in 3 dimensions, the motion becomes unstable, and starts losing some motions.
There are actually several mechanisms that trigger the decay process...
  1. Rotational limit (the one you mentioned), where the reference system can no longer express the magnitude of rotation.
  2. Mass limit, which is determined by the magnetic ionization level and controls the gravitational (vibrational) mass connected with an atom. This is the most common decay form.
  3. Thermal limit, such as used in nuclear reactions.
  4. Electric limit, which is determined by the electric ionization level (analogous to the "cosmic" version of the magnetic ionization level).
Larson discusses the first three in his books. The electric limit was a "natural consequence" of RS2's full incorporation of cosmic effects on the material sector.
What determines which particular "bit" of motion departs?
Nehru and I did a detailed examination of radioactive decay back in the late 1990s and found that the Larson's rules for atomic decay (see Basic Properties of Matter, Chapter 25, "Radioactivity") worked reasonably well, except that the long-period half-lives estimated by conventional science were totally wrong. We never were able to exactly match the decay structures, but did determine that the "bit" that is ejected depends on two factors: the environment and the limit that triggers the event.
Why doesn't, for example, element 118 split equally into 2 motions of 59? There appears to be a preference (in computer terms) to pop a quantum from the top of the stack; is the source of that preference known?
When it comes to the RS/RS2, the "simplest solution" is typically the path that Nature follows. For example, take a chain and start whipping it around over the top of your head. If you go fast enough, the links at the end of the chain may lose structural integrity and break off--after all, atoms are "rotational systems." It is far more likely that you will lose a couple of those links at the end (radioactive emission) to lower the mass of the chain and reduce the tension, than it would be for the chain to split in half, fly across the street to your neighbor, who would then grab it and start flinging it over his head (large atom splitting into two, smaller atoms).
What determines how long the "eject some motion, then expand outward and reacquire the motion again" process continues? The local temporal landscape/environment?
It is just a matter of probability that is determined by environmental factors. Denser environments make it more likely of it happening quicker.
What determines how far "out" a motion is "thrown"? This, in combination with the outward rate of expansion should yield the duration of a "lose-regain" cycle, correct?
The conversion from angular velocity to linear velocity, where VL = 8VR (8 = 2π, where π=4). The faster you are flinging that chain, the further it will fly when you let it go.
If motion is only thrown out in sub-atomic increments, it is carried at the rate of the progression, and therefore can be overtaken by the atomic motion, correct?
Good question! You really put some thought into this. One would think that a particle being emitted outward at +1 (the speed of light) would be influenced by the inward gravitation of the atom at -1, and "go nowhere" quickly, since +1 -1 = 0. And this is indeed the case with Larson's linear-based RS, though he overlooks it in his books.

RS2 includes angular velocity, so a "net motion" is not just a linear magnitude, but a complex quantity--linear velocity + angular velocity. The equivalent space of an atom is primarily angular velocity, so you end up with ~0 + Ni, where N is fairly large. An emitted particle has a lot of linear velocity and not much angular velocity (an electron is just a single unit of rotation), N + ~0i. As a consequence, they easily move through each other--a small, rotating system can fly right out of the equivalent space of the atom, because angular and linear velocities do not combine. (This may also be why an atom doesn't split in half--it would just suck itself back together.)
Whenever I sit down and try to write some code involving RS2, I keep thinking that it might be modeled as some type of pressure system, A similar take to the speed zone map Bruce has shared examples of.
Yes, RS2 is pressure based. What I have recently discovered (since the research on harmonic interactions) is that it models quite well if you use basic pressure relations (linear pressure) for linear velocity and shear stress/strain (rotational pressure) for angular velocity. It works great, conceptually, because with pressure, all you really have are "pushes" and "pulls," just like Larson often used as a substitute for "force."

I am using Java/NetBeans to do my programming work. I suppose I could put it out on GitHub if people were interested in developing a workable RS2 simulation?
Every dogma has its day...
rossum
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Re: Revisting the exploding atom

Post by rossum »

I am definitely interested in programming (or at least reading the code for) a workable RS2 simulation. I have a solid background in differential equations and solid/fluid dynamics i.e. pressure based systems. So far I used C++ and Fortran for such things so I should be able to read Java. I also tried to put together some code for these kinds of things (quite hard to read though). Could you also describe the code conceptually in equations or diagrams?
Yes, RS2 is pressure based.
This is quite exciting news for me: even though I thought so, I never read it so directly so I was't sure until now. Before the change of this forum to phpBB I started working on a blog that was supposed to teach the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics and following Nehru's articles on QM show it's relevancy for RS2 with a little expansion and corrections of mine (Nehru made some errors along the way). My point is that it is exactly a 'pressure based' system.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Revisting the exploding atom

Post by bperet »

rossum wrote:So far I used C++ and Fortran for such things so I should be able to read Java.
Java is much like C++ and I am keeping the code simple and descriptive. I prefer "readable" over efficiency right now.
rossum wrote:I also tried to put together some code for these kinds of things (quite hard to read though). Could you also describe the code conceptually in equations or diagrams?
I am not a "math guy," so it will be diagrams and flow charts.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply